Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 6

July 6

Category:Sep 2007 Jewish Christianity editorial disputes

• Propose merging Category:Sep 2007 Jewish Christianity editorial disputes to Category:Jewish Christianity editorial disputes

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. The parent category may be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

  Merge per Marco, would also support nomming the parent. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Arab

• Propose deleting Category:Arab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. I had already removed "Category:Muslim communities in Africa" and "Category:Muslim communities in Asia" with the edit summary "Arabs are not Muslim by definition. This is an incorrect generalisation." (Millions of Arabic speakers are irreligious, Christian, Jewish, or adherents of other religions. Arab =/= Muslim.) But I now see that there are multiple issues with the category as a whole. Why can't people whose native language is Arabic, but have been born and raised outside MENA be called "Arabs", for example? Why does geography matter? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

PS: (edit conflict) I do think that Category:Arabs may be a legitimate category within the Category:People by ethnicity tree. But it needs to be Purged from "people by nationality" subcategories such as Category:Syrian people and Category:Iraqi people, because this categorisation implies all Syrian and Iraqi nationals are "Arabs", even if their native language is Kurdish, Turkmeni, Turkish, Persian etc. Nationality and ethnicity of groups of people rarely/never coincide completely; in reality, humanity is a series of Venn diagrams. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey @Marcocapelle, you saved your edit just before I could add this postscript. What do think of this? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose though the category may be purged further. Items such as Category:Arab history‎, Category:Arab world, Arab diaspora and Etymology of Arab should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  I've taken a look:

  • Category:Arab diaspora is already in child Category:Arabs.
  • Category:Arab world > Category:Ethnic groups in the Arab world > Category:Arab > Category:Arab world is a Category loop.
  • Category:Arab history is itself also an WP:ARBITRARYCAT WP:CROSSCAT between ethnicity and geography, with parents Category:History by ethnic group and Category:History of the Middle East.
  • Etymology of Arab could easily be re-parented to Category:Arabs.

  Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Interesting! I wouldn't want to pollute Category:Arabs with non-people content, maybe merging to Category:Arab world (and some purging) is a better option. The loop is telling. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

    Indeed, especially the loop gives me the idea that the category has an identity crisis: it has no idea what it is, or meant to be doing. It's a typical case of a category wanting to do lots of different things simultaneously, and failing to do any of them well.

    A different parent for the Etymology page is fine by me, Category:Arabs was just the first option that came to mind. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopening per Special:Permalink/1163761648#NAC_requests_July_2023.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• Keep. This category is the top Arab-related parent of the categories Arabs (biographies), Arab world, Arab history, Arab studies and Anti-Arabism, as well as the article Etymology of Arab. It seems to me that it should be retained as the main category for Arabs as an ethnic group, within the hierarchies for ethnic groups. (Thank you LaundryPizza03 for reopening the discussion to allow fresh arguments.) – Fayenatic London 13:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Fayenatic london: the issue identified later in the discussion is that we have two topic categories, this one and Category:Arab world. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @Marcocapelle: Arab world is for a group of countries; a wider category is needed for the ethnic group. – Fayenatic London 10:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

    @Fayenatic london if "Arab world" is really about a "group of countries", then I think I'll CfD it. Recent months have taught us not to mix up language (families) and countries, or to categorise Fooian-speaking countries and territories, but only Countries and territories where Fooian is an official language. I've seen several renamings of "Arab world" to "Arab League", which is a more useful and objective group. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

    You'll also find renamings the other way, e.g. the Geography category was speedily renamed following Talk:Geography_of_the_Arab_world#Requested_move_10_April_2021. Moreover Arab world and Arab League are separate lead articles. I dont think you would get approval to merge them; so the categories should not be merged either. – Fayenatic London 16:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

    I should clarify what I meant:

    • I think the articles Arab world and Arab League should be kept separate
    • I think most articles with "Arab world" in the title should probably be renamed to have "Arab League" in the title
    • I don't think the categories Category:Arab world and Category:Arab League should be merged/renamed; I think Category:Arab world is just really unhelpful for categorisation purposes, because WP:SUBJECTIVECAT/WP:ARBITRARYCAT.

    Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london Thanks for the courtesy ping.

  It seems to me that it should be retained as the main category for Arabs as an ethnic group. Why? We've already got Category:Arabs for that. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Because that is for biographies. WP:COP says we should have separate categories for those articles. Cf. e.g. Category:Cheyenne (ethnic group) and Category:Cheyenne people. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london Strange. I would have expected biographies in Category:Arab people, but that redirects to Category:Arabs. That is the commonly applied categorisation scheme, isn't it? Fooians = ethnic group / nationality; Fooian people is individuals from that ethnic group or nationality. Or have I missed something? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Nederlandse Leeuw: Naming of categories for ethnic groups and biographies varies quite a lot. Many have been settled at CFD. – Fayenatic London 15:46, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london Hmmm ok. Well, I read that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 19#Category:Arab people Renamed Category:Arab people to Category:Arabs per implicit WP:C2D, and I've got nothing against that. But...

  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 11#Category:Slavic people by nationality was Deleted because it mixed nationality with language (just like not all Iraqis are native Arabic speakers).
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 April 9#Category:Slavic ethnic groups was Withdrawn by me as nom after I understood the difference between ethnic groups and individuals by ethnicity.

  So, I think Category:Arab people should be split off for individuals, and Category:Arabs kept for the ethnic group known as Arabs in general, and we still have no need for Category:Arab. What do you think? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  That would just be renaming Category:Arabs back to Arab people (reversing the 2018 consensus) followed by Category:Arab → Arabs. If you want to try that, I suggest a fresh CFD. – Fayenatic London 16:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I was thinking a CfS, not a CfR, CfD, or CfM. Technically, it would be repurposing Category:Arab people from a redirect to, to a subcategory of, Category:Arabs. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london @Marcocapelle By the way, I've been meaning to Purge Category:People by nationality subcats from Category:Arabs. "Arab" isn't a nationality, there is no country called "Arab" or "Arabic" or "Arabia" or "Arabian". (At most there is Saudi Arabia, but the demonym for that is obviously "Saudi Arabian" or just "Saudi"). There is no reason for us to assume/generalise, for example, that all Category:Iraqi people are "Arabs"; e.g., Demographics of Iraq#Ethnicity states: According to the CIA World Factbook, citing a 1987 Iraqi government estimate, the population of Iraq is formed of 70-80% Arabs followed by 15-20% Kurds. Putting all Category:Iraqi people in Category:Arabs is essentially denying/erasing the existence of millions of Kurds in Iraq. We can't do that, can we?

  The - rather lengthy - category description of Category:Arabs engages in a lot of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH anyway. Time for some serious reworking. Wouldn't you agree? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I disagree. Removal of national categories has already been tried and reverted, e.g. [1]. Categories for nationals of Arab League countries countries where Arabic is natively spoken belong in Arabs because WP:SUBCAT allows cases where the majority of contents would belong in the parent. The description on the category page indicates how individual biographies should be diffused to subcats. – Fayenatic London 15:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  WP:SUBCAT allows cases where the majority of contents would belong in the parent.

  That's not how I read it:

  When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the subcategory really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the parent also.

  I don't think 20-30% non-Arab Iraqis is 'possibly a few exceptions'. Calling all Iraqis 'Arabs' when only 70-80% are Arabs is a faulty generalization. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's been in Arab people/Arabs since 2017. By all means open a discussion on that (and selected others, e.g. Lebanon?) as an RFC. I don't think disagreement about such longstanding categorisations can be resolved in this discussion. The editor who was recently removing such parenting said he would open a project discussion, but did not do so before he was blocked as a sockpuppet. – Fayenatic London 16:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  Well, I guess I may start an CfS then. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  countries where Arabic is natively spoken What does that mean? There are native Arabic speakers living in Brussels. Should we therefore categorise Belgium in Category:Arabs?

  Meanwhile, there are English-language schools in Riyadh; should Saudi Arabia be in Category:English people, or Category:English-speaking people by occupation, or something? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  I was quoting the minimum definition given at Arab world. Presumably the citations (paywalled/offline) refer to the majority or official language. – Fayenatic London 16:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Putting whole country/nationality subcats in an Arab ethnic parent category is common practice in Wikipedia, but it is also bad common practice, misrepresenting Kopts, Kurds, Berbers etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

    I agree with Marco.

    If the citations refer to the majority language, that is WP:NONDEFINING (see the Countries and territories by language CfR).

    If the citations refer to the official language, the appropriate category is Category:Arabic-speaking countries and territories, which has recently been renamed to Category:Countries and territories where Arabic is an official language (but it still needs to be purged).

    Either way, this interpretation of what "Arabs" means in order to justify that Categories for nationals of countries where Arabic is natively spoken belong in Category:Arabs is, in my opinion (and probably that of Marco), deeply flawed. A bad common practice that we should cease. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

    Your opinion about how categories should operate is noted, but does not represent a consensus on English Wikipedia. (I understand that German Wikipedia operates more as you have described.) We have other cases where people are sub-catted for less than a majority, e.g. WP:IRE-CATS is a consensus that people from Northern Ireland are parented by both British and Irish hierarchies, even though many do not identify as both but only as one or the other. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am still confused as to why this category can't be merged to Category:Arab world, the two concepts are not the same but very overlapping. Arab world is defined by Arab ethnicity. One of the articles in this category even has "of the Arab world" in the title, so why would it not belong in Category:Arab world? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Arab world has a geographic focus. Ethnicity transcends geography.

  Genetic history of the Arab world does belong in Arab world, which is why I added it there. But it also belongs in the top category about Arab ethnicity, because it is specifically about "ethnic Arab populations" in the Arab world.

  IMHO Arab diaspora should be in the top category Arab, alongside Arab world. I don't object to it also bring in the people category, as it includes both general and biography articles. -– Fayenatic London

• Arab world has a geographic focus. Ethnicity transcends geography. I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it too, because the word "Arab" depends on ethnicity, as all parents of Category:Arab, Category:Arab world and Category:Arabs show. The term "Arab world" depends on an ethnic group called "Arabs" living in it, even though, indeed, Ethnicity transcends geography (I completely agree with that). That's how "Arabs" can live in Brussels, but nobody would categorise Belgium as part of the so-called "Arab world".

The term "Arab world" is necessarily a generalisation, and cannot be anything other than a generalisation. Some generalisations may be useful for certain purposes (such as the article Arab world), but not for categorisation purposes per WP:CATSPECIFIC, WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. (Just because there is an article doesn't mean there should be an identically-named category).

Therefore, Category:Arab world cannot serve a proper categorisation purpose and should be Deleted or Merged, Category:Arab cannot serve a proper categorisation purpose and should be Deleted (and it almost already was before this CfD was reopened), and Category:Arabs cannot have a geographic focus because Ethnicity transcends geography and should be Purged. Repurposing Category:Arab people for individuals is an additional option we can use to fix the issues here (because it is a redirect, we practically don't need a CfS to do it, as I suggested earlier, although formally agreeing to repurpose it for that purpose may be a good idea). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• I am not highly attached to Category:Arab world either, but then my earlier alt merge should be reversed. I thought of selectively merging Category:Arab to Category:Arab world but the other way around is also ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  Which alt merge?

  I think both should be deleted/merged for the reasons I've given. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  I still say Keep. Category:Arab is for the ethnic group overall. Category:Arab world is for the group of countries, which is acknowledged as a notable topic by the article Arab world, where the ethnic group is in the majority. These should not be merged. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london Category:Arab is for the ethnic group overall. Why? Isn't Category:Arabs already fulfilling that exact role? Category:Arabs's description says: The main article for this category is Arabs. That main article in turn says: The Arabs are an ethnic group (...). Importantly, Arab redirects to Arabs. So Category:Arab is redundant. It does not have a main article, and describing the ethnic group overall is already done by Category:Arabs and Arabs.

  Moreover, if Ethnicity transcends geography (which I agree with), and Category:Arab is for the ethnic group overall. (which I disagree with), why is Category:Arab a child of Category:Middle East and Category:North Africa? It shouldn't if Ethnicity transcends geography. So, Category:Arab is a WP:CROSSCAT, an inappropriate mixture of ethnicity and geography category trees. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  See above – Category:Arabs is for biographies (moved to that name by consensus from Category:Arab people), which must be kept separate under WP:COPSEP.

  We agree about the parenting, so I have removed those parents from Category:Arab. It is Arab world which belongs directly in N.Africa and Middle East. Category:Arab is rightly within their subcats for ethnic groups. – Fayenatic London 10:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london I agree that biographies of individuals should be kept separate from ethnic groups. That's why I proposed to re-purpose Category:Arab people for biographies of individuals: I think Category:Arab people should be split off for individuals, and Category:Arabs kept for the ethnic group known as Arabs in general, and we still have no need for Category:Arab. This is in line with how we categorise elsewhere. Your example of Category:Cheyenne (ethnic group) and Category:Cheyenne people is actually a good one. What you do not seem to realise (unless I'm wrong, which is possible) is that "Cheyenne" can be both singular and plural (although "Cheyennes" is also a correct plural according to wikt:Cheyenne), whereas "Arab" is always singular and "Arabs" is always plural. So we can't leave out the "s" after "Arabs" for the ethnic group category. Maybe that is the confusion here? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  We discussed that above, on 7 July. That's not a split, it would be a rename, although a few non-bio articles may need recategorising. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Fayenatic london Yeah you're correct, technically it would not be a "split". So what do you think of it? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  I would have no objection, but suggest a fresh nomination, including all the century sub-cats etc. – Fayenatic London 11:20, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• @Fayenatic london Thanks! Okay, how should I set this up?

• Propose re-parenting Category:Arabs from Category:People by ethnicity to Category:Ethnic groups in the Arab world, Category:Ethnic groups in the Middle East, Category:Ethnic groups in North Africa (the current parents of Category:Arab)
• Propose re-purposing the re-direct Category:Arab people for biographies of individuals
  • Propose re-parenting Category:Arab people to Category:Arabs and Category:People by ethnicity
• Propose renaming Category:Arabs by century to Category:Arab people by century
  • Propose re-parenting Category:Arab people by century to Category:Arab people
• Propose renaming Category:1st-century Arabs to Category:1st-century Arab people, Category:Xth-century Arabs to Category:Xth-century Arab people etc.

Something like this? If you've got corrections or additions, please say so. I wanna do this correctly from the beginning. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Simpler than that; do it all as renaming, to keep the page history of each category:

• Propose renaming Category:Arab to Category:Arabs (ethnic group category; but do the following first)
• Propose renaming Category:Arabs to Category:Arab people (biographies category; move over redirect)
• Propose renaming Category:Arabs by century to Category:Arab people by century
• Propose renaming Category:1st-century Arabs to Category:1st-century Arab people

etc. I'm not sure the proposal will gain consensus, but I won't oppose it. As a simpler alternative, consider renaming only Category:Arab to Category:Arabs (ethnic group). – Fayenatic London 14:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london Thanks very much! Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 15#Arabs and Arab people. You are invited to participate. Should we close this CfD, and change the target of the CfD template at Category:Arab to Category:Arabs (ethnic group) and tell people to go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 15#Arabs and Arab people for the discussion instead? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Nederlandse Leeuw: that's not what I said… I meant, either list all of the combination that I listed; or ONLY list 1 category for renaming, viz. Category:Arab to Category:Arabs (ethnic group). Your new nomination does not propose to use Category:Arabs for either the ethnic group or for biographies. I suppose it could be a disambiguation for "Arabs (ethnic group)" and "Arab people", but it goes against the previous CFD rationale not to follow the article name Arabs for either category. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Fayenatic london Ok what should I change? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal and many others have made it very clear that Nederlandse Leeuw has no idea what they're talking about. Going to ping the "Arab world" WikiProject so more knowlegable editors step in and put a stop to this madness. Right now, the discussions seem to be driven by 3 editors of presumably European descent with cursory knowledge of the region in question. Al-Andalusi (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Arabs from al-Andalus

• Propose renaming Category:Arabs from al-Andalus to Category:People from al-Andalus of Arab descentCategory:People from al-Andalus of Arabian descent

Nominator's rationale: rename, we use the format "of fooish descent" throughout modern and pre-modern times. I can't quite see why we would not apply the same format to a medieval category. A counter-argument might be that the expression "of Arab descent" was not used in contemporary medieval sources, but Christian sources often used "moors" and we have depracated that term for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Question Isn't Fooian people of Barian descent meant to indicate two countries/nationalities? "Arab" is neither. It is most commonly used for native speakers of the Arabic language. Egyptian, Libyan, Tunisian, Algerian, Moroccan etc., those are nationalities. Arab is not. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

• Of Arab descent would, in this case, mean descending from people in the Arabian peninsula. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Marcocapelle Okay, but (A) wouldn't mean we should call them "of Arabian descent"? and (B) WP:COP-HERITAGE says The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable. Once we are 2 generations away from people who lived in the Arabian Peninsula, their descent is WP:NONDEFINING and shouldn't be categorised. So I'm not sure this category has a future. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  • @Nederlandse Leeuw: "Arabian" is a good point. With respect to B, do you suggest to keep it as is, or do you suggest to delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

    @Marcocapelle Well, I would suggest to Delete, but only because I think ethnicity is WP:NONDEFINING for things like dynasties (just like language families). Child Category:Banu Hud, for example, is also in Category:Arab dynasties, which I - at least at the moment - would delete.

    But at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 2#Category:Berber dynasties, you've said you would Keep things like Category:Berber dynasties, Category:Iranian Muslim dynasties, and Category:Kurdish dynasties. If it is Kept - which is possible - then I think Category:People from al-Andalus by ethnicity needs another subcategory for Category:Berbers from al-Andalus. As I said at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 5#Category:11th-century rulers in Al-Andalus (which led to this CfR), There was an increasing influx of Berbers into al-Andalus, and we know that many of them became monarchs of their own taifa or other state. So it would only be "fair" to categorise Berbers from al-Andalus as well, then. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

    @Marcocapelle I see you've altered the target to "of Arabian descent", which I welcome per (A), but per (B) WP:COP-HERITAGE saying The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable, I think most people and subcategories should then be removed from this category, and we might end up with a completely empty category.

    Example: Ibn Arabi was born in Murcia, present-day Spain in 1165, to ‘Ali ibn Muḥammad, [who] served in the Army of Ibn Mardanīsh, the ruler of Murcia. So his father was probably also born in Spain, perhaps in North Africa, but most probably not in Arabia: His paternal ancestors emigrated very early to Andalusia, probably during the second wave of the Muslim conquest of the Iberian Peninsula. I don't know when this "second wave" was, but probably centuries before 1165 (the "first wave" would have been Muslim conquest of Spain c. 710–780). About his mother: Ibn ʿArabī's maternal ancestry was North African Berber. So not born in Arabia either. Do you see the problem? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

    • This may well be an exception to the rule that more than one generation back is not defining. Being in born in a family that originated from the Arabian peninsula provided extra status regardless of how many generations ago. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

      WP:COP-HERITAGE says The heritage of grandparents is never defining (emphasis by me). I'm not convinced that, if we are even allowed to make an exception (the word "never" doesn't really seem to sympathise with that idea), we should do so in this case. It seems like special pleading to me, sorry. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Nothing wrong with "Arabs", which was a very important category to the people of al-Andalus. See Göran Larsson, Ibn García's Shuʿūbiyya Letter: Ethnic and Theological Tensions in Medieval al-Andalus (Brill, 2003). Srnec (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose to the use of "Arabian", as not all Arab tribes hailed from the Arabian Peninsula. The proposed "Arab descent" alternative is fine, although longer and less readable. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)